Friam

Democracy and evolution

Classic

List

Threaded

10 messages Options

Paul Paryski

Democracy and evolution

In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are the
most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and even Poland.

Paul Paryski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061208/476e7cf2/attachment.html

David Breecker

Democracy and evolution

If Paul is correct, this is fascinating. Perhaps there is some minimum threshold of confidence in the integrity of our "self," beyond which we can afford to be tolerant of the "other"?
db

dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
www.BreeckerAssociates.com
Abiquiu: 505-685-4891
Santa Fe: 505-690-2335

----- Original Message -----
From: PPARYSKI at aol.com
To: friam at redfish.com
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution

In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are the most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and even Poland.

Paul Paryski

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061208/ef777faf/attachment.html

Marcus G. Daniels-3

Democracy and evolution

In reply to this post by Paul Paryski

PPARYSKI at aol.com wrote:
> In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are
> the most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and
> even Poland.
>
Make the group like the individual and vice versa and then
self-preservation is group-preservation, and vice versa.
It risks making the group slower moving, but a collective cognition is a
potential economy of scale. Does one want to optimize for diverse ideas
or strong execution on a few ideas? The latter can be very profitable
and have excellent survival characteristics, especially in the United
States.

David Breecker wrote:
> If Paul is correct, this is fascinating. Perhaps there is some
> minimum threshold of confidence in the integrity of our "self," beyond
> which we can afford to be tolerant of the "other"
Not just integrity of self, but more-seriously the reliability of the
leadership of the collective. There's no point in serving an ideal
that isn't individually beneficial if the ideal it serves has been
compromised by corruption. It seems to me a society (or organization)
with sufficient wealth to nurture the development of complex skills, and
a culture that valued full utilization of the individual, could be very
healthy and still protect itself from competing strategies. However,
it's not clear that psychological health and performance are tightly
correlated. I mean, even if corporate workers are miserable, it
depends whether they are operating at 20% or 80% mental efficiency
compared to their peers in a more Utopian system.

Phil Henshaw-2

Democracy and evolution

Marcus wrote:

>
>
> PPARYSKI at aol.com wrote:
> > In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are
> > the most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and
> > even Poland.
> >
> Make the group like the individual and vice versa and then
> self-preservation is group-preservation, and vice versa.
> It risks making the group slower moving, but a collective
> cognition is a
> potential economy of scale. Does one want to optimize for
> diverse ideas
> or strong execution on a few ideas? The latter can be very
> profitable
> and have excellent survival characteristics, especially in the United
> States.

I think the developed world is a really remarkable new thing on earth.
It's huge, but still doubles in size and complexity approximately every
20 years. Clearly one of the things it prospers from is an incredible
tolerance and need for all different kinds of skills and interests.
When you earn money, you have no idea what your customer will do with
the product you give to them and neither do they know what you'll do
with the money you're paid. It's a marvelous and essential fact of how
things work in an economy, that every exchange essentially has no
purpose, because the next person in the exchanges of the usual
'earning-spending chain' is entirely free to do whatever they like with
what they take away from it. What it does produce is the kind of well
oiled machine that no one in a billion years could possibly design, or
even actually understand.

What takes a while to see is that we are actually in danger of loosing
that, because of a certain intolerance built into the other form of
economic exchange, the 'saving-investment chain'. That's the one with
exponential strings attached to each transaction that form a rigid
behavioral requirement for the recipients. You must add a percent to
the pile if you're to remain in business.

It may well be that settled and cohesive societies that have low social
barriers and general tolerance for individual differences, treating
everyone as an equal, will more readily respond to change and
successfully answer threats to their survival. I think I observe
something of the kind in the response of the low crime areas of New York
City to the crack epidemic in the 80's. The curves clearly show that
they responded much earlier and much more effectively to the scourge
that overtook the 'wild cowboy' neighborhoods of East New York,
Brownsville, Harlem and the South Bronx.

Social structure does matter, but 30 doublings, a reasonable estimate of
the multiplication of wealth since the modern age of growth began, is
more than the acceleration of a meter per second, a nice slow walk, to
the speed of light. The plan for the earth is to keep doubling the size
and complexity of our own lives and impacts on the planet every 20 years
or so, forever. We call it 'stability'. The question is, what sort
of mind notices such curious things? Is it an efficient one, skipping
all the non-essential tasks? Is it one that's comfortable with the way
things are, is tolerant and helps people get along? Or is it one with
a habit of poking around and shaking things up? I observe nature is a
mix, and if you don't know all three of those ways of getting along,
you're not up to speed.

> David Breecker wrote:
> > If Paul is correct, this is fascinating. Perhaps there is some
> > minimum threshold of confidence in the integrity of our
> "self," beyond
> > which we can afford to be tolerant of the "other"
> Not just integrity of self, but more-seriously the reliability of the
> leadership of the collective. There's no point in serving an ideal
> that isn't individually beneficial if the ideal it serves has been
> compromised by corruption. It seems to me a society (or
> organization)
> with sufficient wealth to nurture the development of complex
> skills, and
> a culture that valued full utilization of the individual,
> could be very
> healthy and still protect itself from competing strategies. However,
> it's not clear that psychological health and performance are tightly
> correlated. I mean, even if corporate workers are miserable, it
> depends whether they are operating at 20% or 80% mental efficiency
> compared to their peers in a more Utopian system.

Self-esteem is very hard to come bye sometimes, and it's equally
difficult for others to nourish in an individual that is an unknown
commodity. My 19 year old son is in that in-between world, where
there's relatively very little evidence of his taking charge, so that
his parents are apt to leap at any small sign. It certainly helps to
remember that I was a lot worse, though, so I also sympathize with the
parents who were prodigies and have normal kids. 'Finding one's self'
is not an efficient process, and steadily doubling the amount of
learning required for basic functioning in the 'collective' is
problematic. I think the 'leadership of the collective', as Marcus
puts it, is showing a peculiar negligence in this regard. We're simply
not making a world that's possible to operate in a huge variety of ways.

Our leaders today are the kind who drive the ship of state off an
obvious cliff and then crawl out of the wreck on the barren canyon floor
talking confidently about how they're finally getting the knack of
steering. It could almost make one intolerant...

Marcus G. Daniels-3

Democracy and evolution

Phil Henshaw wrote:

>We're simply not making a world that's possible to operate in a huge variety of ways.
>
>
Here's one way to delay the apocalypse..

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html

Alfredo Covaleda

Democracy and evolution

In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2

Maybe no other Democracy is evolving more than Latin American Democracy.
A few months ago I told you about Latin America turns to left and I said
that It could be a case of emergence. Process seems to be
consolidating, during the last month two left presidents were reelected
and a new one was elected. But in my opinion there are other features
more important behind left presidents phenomena. It's not as simple as
'apparition' of populist candidates or isolated leaders, in fact in
some countries there is a consolidation of solid left democratic
parties. But not only are appearing or emerging left parties, members
of traditional Liberal and Conservator parties are conforming the right
party. It's a very interesting feature of the new Latin American
democratic tendency. Maybe is an irony, but left could finally
consolidate Democracy in Latin America because political power is no
more exclusive of the same white families whom had been dominating
politics along two centuries.

Right politics tends to deny it, but political debate in Latin America
turns around property, is a debate over social classes. Left parties
consider necessary to replace current economical model. This region is
consider the most inequitable of the world and neoliberalism is
increasing it. Huge unemployment, huge subemployment, population with
unsatisfied basic needs are pushing. Unfortunatelly, I think left will
not return job to people because modern production systems have changed
and robots, smart software and biotechnology have replaced the worker.
In my opinion It's the biggest obstacle for left consolidation and of
course common people just claim for job. Probably left governments will
be obligated to appeal to drastic measures. Maybe they are considering
two or three strategies: recover by expropriation totally or partially
the property of strategic companies recently sold by neoliberal
governments, or agree with these foreign companies a redistributions
of profits. Of course, land property redistribution claimed since 60's
could be implemented. In fact, It already started to occur in two
countries and is generating tensions with a couple of developed nations.
But those developed countries are unable to invoke to traditional
intervention because are not treating with a lonely sheep out of the
flock. And it's other important feature: democratic left is creating a
block in the region.

Phil Henshaw wrote:

>Marcus wrote:
>
>
>>PPARYSKI at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are
>>>the most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and
>>>even Poland.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Make the group like the individual and vice versa and then
>>self-preservation is group-preservation, and vice versa.
>>It risks making the group slower moving, but a collective
>>cognition is a
>>potential economy of scale. Does one want to optimize for
>>diverse ideas
>>or strong execution on a few ideas? The latter can be very
>>profitable
>>and have excellent survival characteristics, especially in the United
>>States.
>>
>>
>
>I think the developed world is a really remarkable new thing on earth.
>It's huge, but still doubles in size and complexity approximately every
>20 years. Clearly one of the things it prospers from is an incredible
>tolerance and need for all different kinds of skills and interests.
>When you earn money, you have no idea what your customer will do with
>the product you give to them and neither do they know what you'll do
>with the money you're paid. It's a marvelous and essential fact of how
>things work in an economy, that every exchange essentially has no
>purpose, because the next person in the exchanges of the usual
>'earning-spending chain' is entirely free to do whatever they like with
>what they take away from it. What it does produce is the kind of well
>oiled machine that no one in a billion years could possibly design, or
>even actually understand.
>
>What takes a while to see is that we are actually in danger of loosing
>that, because of a certain intolerance built into the other form of
>economic exchange, the 'saving-investment chain'. That's the one with
>exponential strings attached to each transaction that form a rigid
>behavioral requirement for the recipients. You must add a percent to
>the pile if you're to remain in business.
>
>It may well be that settled and cohesive societies that have low social
>barriers and general tolerance for individual differences, treating
>everyone as an equal, will more readily respond to change and
>successfully answer threats to their survival. I think I observe
>something of the kind in the response of the low crime areas of New York
>City to the crack epidemic in the 80's. The curves clearly show that
>they responded much earlier and much more effectively to the scourge
>that overtook the 'wild cowboy' neighborhoods of East New York,
>Brownsville, Harlem and the South Bronx.
>
>Social structure does matter, but 30 doublings, a reasonable estimate of
>the multiplication of wealth since the modern age of growth began, is
>more than the acceleration of a meter per second, a nice slow walk, to
>the speed of light. The plan for the earth is to keep doubling the size
>and complexity of our own lives and impacts on the planet every 20 years
>or so, forever. We call it 'stability'. The question is, what sort
>of mind notices such curious things? Is it an efficient one, skipping
>all the non-essential tasks? Is it one that's comfortable with the way
>things are, is tolerant and helps people get along? Or is it one with
>a habit of poking around and shaking things up? I observe nature is a
>mix, and if you don't know all three of those ways of getting along,
>you're not up to speed.
>
>
>
>
>>David Breecker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If Paul is correct, this is fascinating. Perhaps there is some
>>>minimum threshold of confidence in the integrity of our
>>>
>>>
>>"self," beyond
>>
>>
>>>which we can afford to be tolerant of the "other"
>>>
>>>
>>Not just integrity of self, but more-seriously the reliability of the
>>leadership of the collective. There's no point in serving an ideal
>>that isn't individually beneficial if the ideal it serves has been
>>compromised by corruption. It seems to me a society (or
>>organization)
>>with sufficient wealth to nurture the development of complex
>>skills, and
>>a culture that valued full utilization of the individual,
>>could be very
>>healthy and still protect itself from competing strategies. However,
>>it's not clear that psychological health and performance are tightly
>>correlated. I mean, even if corporate workers are miserable, it
>>depends whether they are operating at 20% or 80% mental efficiency
>>compared to their peers in a more Utopian system.
>>
>>
>
>Self-esteem is very hard to come bye sometimes, and it's equally
>difficult for others to nourish in an individual that is an unknown
>commodity. My 19 year old son is in that in-between world, where
>there's relatively very little evidence of his taking charge, so that
>his parents are apt to leap at any small sign. It certainly helps to
>remember that I was a lot worse, though, so I also sympathize with the
>parents who were prodigies and have normal kids. 'Finding one's self'
>is not an efficient process, and steadily doubling the amount of
>learning required for basic functioning in the 'collective' is
>problematic. I think the 'leadership of the collective', as Marcus
>puts it, is showing a peculiar negligence in this regard. We're simply
>not making a world that's possible to operate in a huge variety of ways.
>
>Our leaders today are the kind who drive the ship of state off an
>obvious cliff and then crawl out of the wreck on the barren canyon floor
>talking confidently about how they're finally getting the knack of
>steering. It could almost make one intolerant...
>
>
>
>
>============================================================
>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061209/b4e912fb/attachment-0001.html

Phil Henshaw-2

Democracy and evolution

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels-3

well... sort of... For one of a million examples, if we multiply our
impacts on the earth by adding 10 billion people this century, how much
is that relieved by sending 50 or 100 people off to live somewhere else
if they can??? Sometimes we should look at the numbers and the timing
of things.

It may raise more questons than it answers,... but another one I like is
estimating the value of the bomb hardening of federal buildings, like
the one I'm building now, a big courthouse. It probably adds at least
10 million to the cost. If you guess there are at least 5000 higher
priority targets for terrorists in the US than a courthouse in
Mississippi, and terrorists wipe out one a year like clock work, that
means it'll be at least 5000 years before they get around to mine.
Given that the lifetime of the building is expected to be 100 years it's
apparent that nature will build and destroy it at least 50 times before
a terrorist does, and the lost opportunity cost of $10 million for 5000
years the way you normally calculate it at 3.5% return is 1.8*10^84.
That's a lot of bread!!

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:28 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
>
>
> Phil Henshaw wrote:
>
> >We're simply not making a world that's possible to operate in a huge
> >variety of ways.
> >
> >
> Here's one way to delay the apocalypse..
>

Phil Henshaw-2

Democracy and evolution

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels-3

oops, that last calculation was off, leaving out the effect of
reincurring the lost opportunity for each one of the 50 reincarnations
of the building before it has a use!

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

Phil Henshaw-2

Democracy and evolution

In reply to this post by Alfredo Covaleda

That's both interesting, and provides a good example of how to begin
assembling evidence of whole system events from anecdotal information.
Your syntax is a little unfamiliar in places, but assembling as wide a
variety of consistent progressing indicators if very useful. My
research method for natural systems (roughly defined as 'movements' with
a life of their own) also involves careful analysis of the turning
points in their growth curves. You might find that interesting to
pursue. One easy way to collect information on natural system events
in the development of ideas, policies and trends, etc., is to pick one
or more key phrases and do a historical search in an established
database for the frequency of their use. Separating one group's use
from another is sometimes challenging, but often there's a particular
turn of phrase that stands out. My site has two examples of how to
use that technique, one for the holistic environmental design
'sustainability' movement and one for 'General Systems Theory'.

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Alfredo [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:59 AM
To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution

Maybe no other Democracy is evolving more than Latin American Democracy.
A few months ago I told you about Latin America turns to left and I said
that It could be a case of emergence. Process seems to be
consolidating, during the last month two left presidents were reelected
and a new one was elected. But in my opinion there are other features
more important behind left presidents phenomena. It's not as simple as
'apparition' of populist candidates or isolated leaders, in fact in
some countries there is a consolidation of solid left democratic
parties. But not only are appearing or emerging left parties, members
of traditional Liberal and Conservator parties are conforming the right
party. It's a very interesting feature of the new Latin American
democratic tendency. Maybe is an irony, but left could finally
consolidate Democracy in Latin America because political power is no
more exclusive of the same white families whom had been dominating
politics along two centuries.

Right politics tends to deny it, but political debate in Latin America
turns around property, is a debate over social classes. Left parties
consider necessary to replace current economical model. This region is
consider the most inequitable of the world and neoliberalism is
increasing it. Huge unemployment, huge subemployment, population with
unsatisfied basic needs are pushing. Unfortunatelly, I think left will
not return job to people because modern production systems have changed
and robots, smart software and biotechnology have replaced the worker.
In my opinion It's the biggest obstacle for left consolidation and of
course common people just claim for job. Probably left governments will
be obligated to appeal to drastic measures. Maybe they are considering
two or three strategies: recover by expropriation totally or partially
the property of strategic companies recently sold by neoliberal
governments, or agree with these foreign companies a redistributions
of profits. Of course, land property redistribution claimed since 60's
could be implemented. In fact, It already started to occur in two
countries and is generating tensions with a couple of developed nations.
But those developed countries are unable to invoke to traditional
intervention because are not treating with a lonely sheep out of the
flock. And it's other important feature: democratic left is creating a
block in the region.

Phil Henshaw wrote:

Marcus wrote:

PPARYSKI at aol.com wrote:

In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are

the most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and

even Poland.

Make the group like the individual and vice versa and then

self-preservation is group-preservation, and vice versa.

It risks making the group slower moving, but a collective

cognition is a

potential economy of scale. Does one want to optimize for

diverse ideas

or strong execution on a few ideas? The latter can be very

profitable

and have excellent survival characteristics, especially in the United

States.

I think the developed world is a really remarkable new thing on earth.

It's huge, but still doubles in size and complexity approximately every

20 years. Clearly one of the things it prospers from is an incredible

tolerance and need for all different kinds of skills and interests.

When you earn money, you have no idea what your customer will do with

the product you give to them and neither do they know what you'll do

with the money you're paid. It's a marvelous and essential fact of how

things work in an economy, that every exchange essentially has no

purpose, because the next person in the exchanges of the usual

'earning-spending chain' is entirely free to do whatever they like with

what they take away from it. What it does produce is the kind of well

oiled machine that no one in a billion years could possibly design, or

even actually understand.

What takes a while to see is that we are actually in danger of loosing

that, because of a certain intolerance built into the other form of

economic exchange, the 'saving-investment chain'. That's the one with

exponential strings attached to each transaction that form a rigid

behavioral requirement for the recipients. You must add a percent to

the pile if you're to remain in business.

It may well be that settled and cohesive societies that have low social

barriers and general tolerance for individual differences, treating

everyone as an equal, will more readily respond to change and

successfully answer threats to their survival. I think I observe

something of the kind in the response of the low crime areas of New York

City to the crack epidemic in the 80's. The curves clearly show that

they responded much earlier and much more effectively to the scourge

that overtook the 'wild cowboy' neighborhoods of East New York,

Brownsville, Harlem and the South Bronx.

Social structure does matter, but 30 doublings, a reasonable estimate of

the multiplication of wealth since the modern age of growth began, is

more than the acceleration of a meter per second, a nice slow walk, to

the speed of light. The plan for the earth is to keep doubling the size

and complexity of our own lives and impacts on the planet every 20 years

or so, forever. We call it 'stability'. The question is, what sort

of mind notices such curious things? Is it an efficient one, skipping

all the non-essential tasks? Is it one that's comfortable with the way

things are, is tolerant and helps people get along? Or is it one with

a habit of poking around and shaking things up? I observe nature is a

mix, and if you don't know all three of those ways of getting along,

you're not up to speed.

David Breecker wrote:

If Paul is correct, this is fascinating. Perhaps there is some

minimum threshold of confidence in the integrity of our

"self," beyond

which we can afford to be tolerant of the "other"

Not just integrity of self, but more-seriously the reliability of the

leadership of the collective. There's no point in serving an ideal

that isn't individually beneficial if the ideal it serves has been

compromised by corruption. It seems to me a society (or

organization)

with sufficient wealth to nurture the development of complex

skills, and

a culture that valued full utilization of the individual,

could be very

healthy and still protect itself from competing strategies. However,

it's not clear that psychological health and performance are tightly

correlated. I mean, even if corporate workers are miserable, it

depends whether they are operating at 20% or 80% mental efficiency

compared to their peers in a more Utopian system.

Self-esteem is very hard to come bye sometimes, and it's equally

difficult for others to nourish in an individual that is an unknown

commodity. My 19 year old son is in that in-between world, where

there's relatively very little evidence of his taking charge, so that

his parents are apt to leap at any small sign. It certainly helps to

remember that I was a lot worse, though, so I also sympathize with the

parents who were prodigies and have normal kids. 'Finding one's self'

is not an efficient process, and steadily doubling the amount of

learning required for basic functioning in the 'collective' is

problematic. I think the 'leadership of the collective', as Marcus

puts it, is showing a peculiar negligence in this regard. We're simply

not making a world that's possible to operate in a huge variety of ways.

Our leaders today are the kind who drive the ship of state off an

obvious cliff and then crawl out of the wreck on the barren canyon floor

talking confidently about how they're finally getting the knack of

steering. It could almost make one intolerant...

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061209/d4913e69/attachment-0001.html

doug carmichael

Democracy and evolution

In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2

Phil, I have been thinking about your comment that you will say something
with implications and nobody responds, like your comment about an economic
expansion based on our success till we collapse our environment by eating up
our own surround. And then you raise the question of bomb hardening of
buildings...

What of the work of Joseph Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies..?

To ideas he has
1. societies overspend on infrastructure, and infrastructure costs rise
faster than GDP, till all surplus is used up and a cost overshoot happens..

2. Elites own the infrastructure business and so are motivated to not cut
back on costs.

Your two ideas seem to fit this. Can a smarter human community avoid the
evolutionary failures?

Any contact with Tainter? I really admire his work. He has been at the SF
Institute..

Doug Carmichael

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Phil Henshaw
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 10:58 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution

well... sort of... For one of a million examples, if we multiply our
impacts on the earth by adding 10 billion people this century, how much
is that relieved by sending 50 or 100 people off to live somewhere else
if they can??? Sometimes we should look at the numbers and the timing
of things.

It may raise more questons than it answers,... but another one I like is
estimating the value of the bomb hardening of federal buildings, like
the one I'm building now, a big courthouse. It probably adds at least
10 million to the cost. If you guess there are at least 5000 higher
priority targets for terrorists in the US than a courthouse in
Mississippi, and terrorists wipe out one a year like clock work, that
means it'll be at least 5000 years before they get around to mine.
Given that the lifetime of the building is expected to be 100 years it's
apparent that nature will build and destroy it at least 50 times before
a terrorist does, and the lost opportunity cost of $10 million for 5000
years the way you normally calculate it at 3.5% return is 1.8*10^84.
That's a lot of bread!!

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/580 - Release Date: 12/8/2006
12:53 PM

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/580 - Release Date: 12/8/2006
12:53 PM